[__ Science __ ] How Long Have Arches Been Around?

[AIG.com]

The recent collapse of many arches is a problem for evolution.

Continue reading...

 

[Audie]

Conclusion is that if you start with a conclusion
it will never be an honest result. If this needs explaining, I can go into much detail.
But maybe just being the accused in a court with
predetermined verdict is example enough.



One assumption is that a particular chosen interpretation ( literal ) of flood story is God's truth.

No other understanding allowed for.

A next huge assumption is that the countless ways that "flood" ( literal) is proven false by all the
hard sciences, are just baloney. Whatever they are.

No math- gish can falsify all the flood - disproof.

 

[hawkman]

One assumption is that a particular chosen interpretation ( literal ) of flood story is God's truth.

So many flood stories from around the world , why do you think that is ?

Flood Legends From Around the World

 

[hawkman]

invincible warriors, half- gods who say they will return...you tell me why.

Do you know anything about fallen angels ?

But wildly differing flood myths are irrelevant anyway if there's no flood.

If .

People don't like to admit being wrong.

I am I wrong in following God ? NO !

We have some new Terms of Service , did you read them ?

1.2: Anyone who is not a Christian is only permitted to post in the Question and Answers section, and those who identify themselves as Christians will be held accountable to conduct themselves as such. If they are truly governed by the Holy Spirit, they will not continually engage in goading, mocking, insulting, trolling, berating or inciting other members to anger and resentment. They will post in a Spirit of kindness and respect, even if there are doctrinal disagreements, and be quick to reconcile if differences of opinion should get heated. Disciplinary actions will be taken against those whom staff regards to be naming the name of Christ and yet are holding the truth in unrighteousness.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Of what use is a discussion, if all voices speak the same?

i'm Chinese. I was not raised a Christian but
Jesus' teachings are so similar to what we are
taught, his were incorporated, translated to Cantonese. I don't call myself Christian.
Is a Christian someone who believes in his teachings?

But whatever.

If you wish to exclude my views, say so.

I will vanish among a billion or so other Chinese

Greetings, Audie.

Hawkman was correct that non-christians are only technically permitted to post in Questions and Answers if they would like to learn more about the Christian Faith. The problem is that non-Christians often use our site as a platform to teach their views instead, and while some Christian forums are built for this, ours is more of a purely Christian website dedicated to Christians and for Christians.

Hope you understand, but under those terms we will have to exclude you from posting anywhere but Q&A if you genuinely have interest in becoming Christian.

Blessings,
Hidden

 

[hawkman]

Millions of Christians agree that the
flood is not a historical event.

Millions of Christians do not speak in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance either . There would be a LOT less doubt in the Christian world .

There is powerful disproof of a worldwide event.
Are you not aware? Is it bad of me to speak of such facts?

There is a powerful disproof , not that I have seen .

I'd never speak against following God.

Then you need to become born again .

I'm just pointing out why that literal interpretation is mistaken, much as Christians do among themselves.

God is literally exactly Who he says He is in the Bible . I do take the Bible literally , there is not any reason for me not to .

Of what use is a discussion, if all voices speak the same?

Do you have any idea at all how many Christian denominations there are ? They do not all think alike .

i'm Chinese. I was not raised a Christian but
Jesus' teachings are so similar to what we are
taught, his were incorporated, translated to Cantonese. I don't call myself Christian.
Is a Christian someone who believes in his teachings?

You need to be Born Again .

I will vanish among a billion or so other Chinese
and be seen no more.

Your questions are welcomed here , no need to vanish .

Questions and Answers

A place for those with little knowledge of Christianity to ask open, honest questions. Only Christians may answer, and this is not a debate forum. Moderated by: WIP

christianforums.net

 

[Barbarian]

So many flood stories from around the world , why do you think that is ?

Either there was one big flood or there were a lot of big floods. The evidence shows a lot of big floods.

 

[hawkman]

Either there was one big flood or there were a lot of big floods. The evidence shows a lot of big floods.

When I am walking the streets of gold I am going to find Noah and have a chat .

Even More Flood Stories !

 

[KV-44-v1]

Either there was one big flood or there were a lot of big floods. The evidence shows a lot of big floods.

The Bible says there was one big flood.
In no way does that evidence contradict the World flood?

1. All the Mountains Were Covered. The tops of all the high mountains under the entire heavens were at least 20 feet beneath the waters surface (Genesis 7:19-20). It would be absurd to think that a flood covering the highest mountains of the Middle East would not affect the rest of the world. In addition, the waters remained at this awesome, mountain-covering height for five months! (Genesis 7:18-24, 8:1-5).
2. Genesis 7:19-20 NASB
   X
   And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.
   Close
   
   
   Genesis 7:18-24 NASB
   X
   The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. So all creatures that moved on the earth perished: birds, livestock, animals, and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. So He wiped out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from mankind to animals, to crawling things, and the birds of the sky, and they were wiped out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. The water prevailed upon the earth for 150 days.
   Close
   
   
   Genesis 8:1-5 NASB
   X
   But God remembered Noah and all the animals and all the livestock that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided. Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained; and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of 150 days the water decreased. Then in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. And the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
   Close
3. The Ark Was Huge. The ark was necessary to prevent the extinction of humans and animals. If the Flood were merely local, God could have sent them to a safer part of the world. God warned Noah about the Flood 120 years prior to its start. Surely, Noah and his family could have traveled a great distance in that time. Also, if the Flood was local, the ark was unnecessarily large. Until the first metal ships were constructed in modern times, the ark was the largest ship ever built. It was big enough to house representative pairs of every created-kind of air-breathing, land animal on Earth.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Audie said that "mills of Christians" agree that the Flood was "not" a historical event. Her post is gone, but thankfully someone replied.

I'll refute this.
1. BILLIONS of people don't know or don't believe in Christianity, but that doesn't make it false. Nor athiesm (dis-believing in God), but i doubt thatll convince them.
Using "what the majority of humanity believe" in regards to Biblical teachings is a terrible argument against the Flood. All people (except Jesus, and pretty much certainly babies) are or were sinners by nature. And many lack knowledge. Combine these 2 and you get quite a lack of Christianity, as well as history taught by the Bible. There are other factors, ex: Peer pressure.

Actually, this is a WONDERFUL argument FOR Christianity. The Bible pretty much says that the world is against Him, and will be against Christians. The world in general loves sin. See John 15:18-27 and when the Bible describes mans wickedness so great that God sends a watery flood over all of earth.

The WOR L D promotes "theres no Global Flood!!1!"
But the WORD states truthfully, THERE WAS ONE. And God will Never send a water global flood again.

2. Athiests and 'compromisers' who compromise Genesis are converting Christians into flood-deniers.
If God's Word does NOT teach a Global Flood, WHY is the enemy (the devil) and the world (majority of mankind) trying to push "no Noah's Flood"???? The enemy does not use up his efforts on lies, he's the father of lies. The enemy attacks truth.

 

[Barbarian]

The Bible says there was one big flood.

It mentions one.

And not surprisingly, there was a whopper of a flood in the Middle East about the right time. It created the Black Sea. There are mountains now completely covered at the bottom of that sea. "Under Heaven"was related to the belief at the time that the Earth was flat with a domelike heaven above, with windows through which rain could fall. If you focus on the accepted model for those times, you miss the entire point of the flood story.

And of course there was at least one wooden ship which was as long as the Ark was said to be. But due to wave forces, a wooden ship flexes so much that it leaks rapidly. The Wyoming required two steam-powered bilge pumps to keep up.

This is why creationists won't build and Ark and test it for a year at sea. It would sink.

@Audie said that "mills of Christians" agree that the Flood was "not" a historical event. Her post is gone, but thankfully someone replied.

There's a very good likelihood that the flood was a real event. It's just that some of the details in scripture, like a flat Earth, a solid domed sky with floodgates in it, and the like merely reflect the thinking about the world at the time.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Muav Formation beds are bent in the Matkatamiba fold exposed along the Colorado River in central Grand Canyon. Conventional geologists accept that this folding occurred during the Laramide orogeny at ~40–70 ma when the Colorado Plateau was uplifted. However, the Muav Formation had been deposited at 499–502 ma, so after ~450 million years it should have been fully cemented and lithified. Yet the limestone beds look as though they were bent smoothly while they were still unlithified and soft. Such a conclusion would be preposterous if there were ~450 million years between deposition of the Muav Formation and its deformation in the Matkatamiba fold. To investigate this further, Muav Formation samples were collected from the hinge and limb zones of the Matkatamiba fold, as well as samples many miles away from the fold. Macroscopic features that should be present if the Muav Formation beds in the fold had been bent via ductile deformation over millions of years are bedding plane slip, slickensides on bedding plane surfaces, thickening of hinge zones and thinning of limb zones, as well as more fracturing in the hinge zones compared to the limbs. At the microscopic scale there should be evidence of grain-boundary sliding, rotation and fracturing of grains, disruption of the calcite cement, and within many quartz grains there should be undulose extinction, deformation lamellae and deformation kink bands. Field observations are inconsistent with ductile deformation under low pressure-low temperature metamorphic conditions. While trivial localized bedding plane slip has occurred, no slickensides are found on any bedding plane surfaces. There is no thickening of beds in the hinge zones or thinning in the hinge zones. Fracturing is minimal throughout the fold and confined to within the laminae or are widely spaced, consistent with joint development due to shrinkage during dewatering. All these observed features have been replicated using damp soft sediment layers in experiments simulating compressional folding, which equates to soft-sediment deformation. None of the microscopic features expected from ductile deformation are present in any of the samples, those from the hinge and limb zones of the fold being essentially identical to those distal to the fold. There is no obvious evidence of any rotation of grains or grain boundary sliding, and there are no deformation lamellae or deformation kink bands in the quartz grains which rarely display even trivial undulose extinction, which would have been a product of their metamorphic source. The few occasional trivial fractures in most samples is consistent with sediment compaction under confining overburden pressures. Instead, the poorly sorted and scattered, angular to sub-rounded quartz and K-feldspar grains, and occasional muscovite flakes, plagioclase and glauconite grains, and brachiopod shell fragments are still in their detrital condition, “floating” in a matrix of micrite (mud-silt sized calcite particles) all lithified by calcite cement. There are no indications of the calcite cement having been disturbed since lithification of these limestone beds or of any metamorphic changes to the constituent minerals or the rock fabric. On the contrary, “injectites” in a hinge zone sample are consistent with being due to soft-sediment deformation before the limestone beds were cemented and lithified. Furthermore, SEM images clearly confirm that the calcite cement has not been disrupted since lithification in any of the samples. And even the scattered muscovite flakes are still in their detrital condition in all samples, with some having been bent or their “pages” split due to compactional loading, and no hint of any metamorphic changes due to deep burial. Thus, both the macroscopic and microscopic evidence are conclusively consistent only with soft-sediment deformation before cementation and lithification. Therefore, it is concluded that the Muav Formation had to be folded while still relatively damp, unlithified and soft soon after deposition and before cementation and lithification. Problems with radioisotope dating methods and U-Pb dates obtained for the underlying Tapeats Sandstone rule out the vast claimed ages. This can all be easily reconciled with rapid deposition of the Muav Formation early in the biblical global Flood cataclysm only ~4,350 years ago, and rapid deposition of up to ~3,300–4,500 m (~10,800–14,750 ft) of overlying sedimentary layers caused by inundation via catastrophic plate activity during the Flood year. Late or later in the Flood year, as the Farallon plate underplated the western North American plate, it caused isostatic reequilibration which likely resulted in the Late Cretaceous-Early Cenozoic Laramide uplift of the Colorado Plateau and the monocline folding in the Grand Canyon region. Because the Muav Formation beds were still relatively unlithified and soft less than a year after rapid burial, they easily responded via soft-sediment deformation to form the smooth bending in the Matkatamiba fold before the beds hardened and were cemented and lithified. Thus, nearly 500 million years of claimed geologic history can be eliminated as fictional.
answersresearchjournal.org/geology/matkatamiba-fold/

 

[KV-44-v1]

1. <Same source>Microscopic features in Muav Formation samples within the Matkatamiba fold, whether from the hinge zones or the limbs, are no different to the distal samples in their mineral constituents and textures, being essentially still in their original detrital sedimentary condition.
2. Scattered detrital muscovite flakes are wedged within the micrite, are sometimes bent around quartz, K-feldspar grains, and occasionally have frayed ends, consistent with all the limestone samples still being in their original sedimentary condition.
3. There is no evidence of any grain-boundary sliding between the micrite, quartz, and the other grains, nor are there any deformation lamellae within any quartz grains, but only isolated trivial undulose extinction acquired in their metamorphic source rocks, none of which are consistent with ductile (plastic) deformation having occurred in the limestone laminae in the Matkatamiba fold, nor is there any evidence of any metamorphism due to deep burial and the deformation.
4. The calcite cement is pristine with no evidence of disruption, though the bending of some muscovite flakes and the negligible tiny pore spaces are likely due to compactional loading, all indicating the cement formed after the folding, followed by patchy calcite or rare dolomite recrystallization of the micrite and cement.
5. Conditions in the history of the limestone have not been different during the deformation in this fold compared to the same limestone beds distant from this fold.
6. All the macroscopic features in the Matkatamiba fold, including only isolated evidence of bedding plane or flexural slippage between two laminae with no slickensides, and minor fracturing within laminae attributable to joint development during dewatering, have all been readily replicated in soft-sediment deformation experiments at laboratory scale.
7. There is no macroscopic or microscopic evidence consistent with the conventional explanation that the Matkatamiba fold was produced by ductile (plastic) deformation under low pressure-low temperature metamorphic conditions over millions of years some 450 million years after deposition and cementation of the Muav Formation.
8. Instead, all the macroscopic and microscopic evidence combined is only consistent with the Matkatamiba fold having been produced by soft-sediment deformation of the Muav Formation soon after deposition and before dewatering caused joint development and cementation.